War: not in my name

The Hon Stephen Smith MP

PO Box 901 Inglewood

WA 6932

December 10, 2008

Dear Mr Smith

War: not in my name

No one doubts that the death of some 3,000 civilians in the September 11 attacks was devastating and tragic. The event scarred people globally and left behind an agonising emptiness for the loved ones of all those who perished. But seven years on Australia’s complicity with disproportionate revenge has resulted in the slaying of no less than 400 Iraqi civilians, including countless children, for every one person killed on September 11. In other words, the civilian death toll in Iraq is the equivalent of 400 World Trade Centre attacks.

In light of that, and in light of the Rudd Government's espousal of policies of openness and honesty, all Australians deserve to know the true picture.

War in Iraq

In the aftermath of the announcement of Australia’s phased withdrawal from Iraq would you please confirm:

1. Iraqi body count

What, according to your best intelligence, is the current actual or estimated death toll of civilians killed in Iraq? Given that Labor senators in 2005 expressed their indignation at the Howard government for not knowing about or caring enough for civilians killed in the Iraq war, I assume you have continued to take an interest in this issue? (According to the Population Reference Bureau the population in Iraq in mid 2008 was over 29 million.)

2. Iraqi children

(a) Is the Rudd Government aware of the World Vision Trapped! The Disappearing Hopes of Iraqi Refugee Children April 2007 report and its calls upon the international community to provide Iraqi children with education and proper healthcare, for both their physical and psychological needs, and protection for refugee communities? Has the government considered the stories of children like Fawaz (9-years-old), Qazim (13-years-old), Farah (10-years-old) and Salah (12-years-old)? If not, you may care to look.

(b) Late last year UNICEF called for support to:

• rapidly increase attention and action to meet the immediate needs of children and families inside Iraq - focusing on all vulnerable groups;
• widen humanitarian access to Iraqi children and their families in conflict zones, behind security barriers and in detention centres; and
• strengthen Iraq’s capacity and initiatives to improve governance and mobilise its own resources to invest in national recovery.

It went onto stress that the needs of Iraq’s children depend, to a great extent, on sufficient financial resources being made available. Have these calls been answered by us, and if so, how?

(c) What is the Rudd Government going to do to address the issues raised in the International Committee of the Red Cross March 2008 report (PDF 448KB)?

In particular, what if anything does the government propose to do to address its suggestion that “... As a matter of priority, every Iraqi man, women and child should have regular access to health care, electricity, clean water and sanitation. Moreover, all those involved in the conflict and those who can influence them must do everything possible to ensure that civilians, medical staff and medical facilities are not harmed. This is an obligation under international humanitarian law that applies to all parties to an armed conflict - both States and non-State actors ...”?

(d) Is the Rudd Government aware of calls made by Ms Jolie, Goodwill ambassador for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, in April this year for the international community to make the education of Iraqi children a higher priority in order “... to reach them and help them deal with their future ...”?

(e) Is the Rudd Government aware of the European Network of Ombudspeople for Children June 2008 report?

Assuming it is, what steps are you taking to ensure the speedy release of all women and children that may remain in detention centres in Iraq (such as Camp Bucca, Camp Cropper, Fort Suse, or elsewhere)?

3. Iraqi refugees and resettlement programs

(a) According to Amnesty International’s June 2008 report Rhetoric and reality: the Iraqi refugee crisis the international community is evading its responsibility towards refugees from Iraq by promoting a false picture of the security situation in Iraq when the country is neither safe nor suitable for return. It further states that “… the Government of Iraq and states involved in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, in particular the USA and the UK, highlight ‘improved’ security or ‘voluntary’ returns to Iraq out of political expedience, to demonstrate that their military involvement has been a success …” Does the Rudd Government agree with and will it adopt all “international community” recommendations outlined in this report? If not, why not.

Amnesty International also reported this year that:

The sectarian violence in Iraq has forced millions of Iraqis to flee their homes, creating a displacement crisis that has become one of the world’s worst humanitarian disasters in recent years. According to UNHCR, around 4.2 million people are now displaced. These include 2.2 million internally displaced and over 2 million refugees outside Iraq. The vast majority of those forced to leave Iraq went to Syria and Jordan … after so little assistance came from the international community, the authorities in both Syria and Jordan introduced strict visa requirements on Iraqi nationals … These new restrictions have all but cut off the last escape routes for Iraqis needing refuge from the violence in their country …

On December 5, 2008 Senator Evans publicly stated that “… Ongoing conflicts in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka have seen thousands of displaced people seeking refuge around the world, and the people smugglers are exploiting these people at their most vulnerable times …” With barriers faced at Syrian and Jordanian borders to the northwest and west of Iraq, what choices does the Rudd Government say are available to the Iraqi refugees who need to flee the violence in their own country? Which routes should they take? Is Australia providing them with any assistance?

(b) Is the Rudd Government going to increase its “resettlement quota more broadly in order to at least maintain previous levels of resettlement in relation to its overall immigration programme”, as has been strongly urged by Amnesty International?

(c) Amnesty International Australia reported that:

... the Australian government has pledged in its budget announcement of May 2008, to provide AUD 140 million (US$134 million) over three years, with AUD$60million (US$57million) in 2008-09, for humanitarian assistance and reconstruction priorities and to assist in building the capacity of the Iraqi government in key sectors. The Australian government stated its enhanced package of assistance will help meet the immediate humanitarian needs of Iraq’s vulnerable civilian population by providing access to essential food items, emergency shelter, clean water and adequate sanitation and basic health services. It will aim to improve Iraqi government capacity and assist reconstruction efforts in Iraq by improving basic services, particularly in agriculture, and supporting mine risk education. To deliver this assistance, the Australian government stated that it will work closely with key international humanitarian and development agencies including the ICRC, UNHCR, WFP and UNICEF. The budget further allocated AUD10 million (US$9.6 million) in 2008- 2009 to specifically assist with stabilising populations in Iraq through the Displaced Persons and Refugee Fund.

How will the Rudd Government monitor and report to the electorate on the outcomes from its expenditure? What, if any, conditions have been placed on this funding?

4. Accountability

(a) Five guards from the private US security firm Blackwater recently were charged over a shooting which left more than a dozen Iraqis dead in central Baghdad last year. US attorney Jeff Taylor’s commented (emphasis added): "... We take no pleasure in charging individuals whose job it is to protect the men and women of our country but when individuals are alleged to have violated the law while carrying out those duties, we are duty bound to hold them accountable as no one is above the law even when our country is engaged in war." I presume this is the stance adopted by the Australian Government?

However:

(b) Last month Lord Bingham publicly stated that the “war in Iraq” was “a serious violation of international law and the rule of law”. Does the Rudd Government agree?

(c) Late last year Alan Greenspan said “... I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil ...” Considering this admission along with the issues raised by Christopher Doran in A militarised Neo- Liberalism: Australia’s Economic Polices, will the Rudd Government investigate the legality of all of Australia’s economic activities in Iraq?

(d) The Amnesty International Carnage and Despair Iraq five years on 2008 report says:

... Five years on, Iraqis are living in fear and desperation. Despite a recent decrease in bloodshed, violence continues to claim hundreds of civilian lives every month. The human rights situation is bleak. All sides involved in the fighting have committed atrocities that amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Iraqi government has failed to investigate gross human rights violations or bring those responsible to justice. The MNF has committed serious human rights violations.

The Iraqi government, the MNF and the international community must make a real commitment to protect and promote the full range of human rights for all Iraqis and others within Iraq, including the millions of people who have been forced to abandon their homes. While Amnesty International recognises that both the Iraqi government and the MNF are facing armed groups who aim to deliberately kill large numbers of civilians, this must not be used as justification for their forces to perpetrate serious human rights violations with impunity.

Does the Rudd Government intend to adopt the recommendations made by Amnesty International on pages 23 and 24 of its report? If not, why not?

War in Afghanistan

As if our involvement in Iraq was not, by Prime Minister Rudd’s own admission, bad enough, it seems that we will continue to “up the ante” in Afghanistan. For what? For whom? For how long? If another million people die will the cost of continuing be too high?

In mid 2008 the population of Afghanistan was more than 32 million people. This year Prime Minister Rudd said "... We must learn from Australia's experience in the lead-up to going to war with Iraq and not repeat the same mistakes in the future". Is that not precisely what we are doing by continuing our military involvement?

The Howard government claiming to act on a “feeling” that something is the right thing to do is very different from the Rudd Government doing something “knowing” it is the wrong thing to do. In view of those matters would you please confirm:

(a) What strategies have you put, or are you putting, in place in Afghanistan to avoid the mistakes of Iraq?

(b) Is the Rudd Government committed to ensuring that civilian deaths in Afghanistan are and will be accurately recorded and reported to all Australian citizens?

(c) Have our intelligence sources looked at who is selling weapons to the “the terrorists”? Who is?

(d) Has the Rudd Government done a thorough and proper analysis of the difficulties faced by the British during the First, Second and Third Anglo-Afghan Wars and the Russian loss of the Soviet War in Afghanistan (1978-1988)? Please see link to the National Security Archive.

(e) Is the Rudd Government aware of the recent warning given by Britain's most senior military commander in Afghanistan, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, that the war against the Taliban cannot be won?

(f) In September Admiral Mike Mullen, the top military officer at the Pentagon, told a Congressional committee that US and international forces are not winning the war in Afghanistan and that “... We cannot kill our way to victory”. Does the Rudd Government agree with this view? If not, why? If so, why Australia's continued military involvement?

(g) What benchmarks have been set for victory or defeat in Afghanistan? How will the Rudd Government and we Australians know when victory has been achieved? Will it be the raising of a single white flag? Will it be the complete withdrawal of Afghani people from their own country? Will it be the handing over of the keys to Afghanistan’s natural resources? Will it be the death of another million people or more? Or, is the plan for us to simply wait until we are told that our services are no longer required? As importantly, what is the benchmark for failure?

Conclusion

Whatever happened to Australia having not just acceptable, but respected, standards, Mr Smith? Australia once had some international respect as a country that did the right thing, but are we not now seen as doing no more than lip service to morality? To reason? To common sense? To the insistence on basic freedoms? To human and economic fairness?

When the children of future generations learn about the injustices, the inhumanity and in all likelihood the criminality of the “war against terror” they will ask who spoke out and who remained complicit by their silence. I, like many, if not most Australians, want it on the record that the “war” in Iraq was not in my name; that the “war” in Afghanistan is not in my name; and that the killing of well over a million fellow human beings is a cross that the Howard Government must bear, as must the Rudd Government and yourself if you fail to act.

I look forward to your considered reply.

Yours faithfully

Kellie Tranter
Lawyer

cc The Hon Kevin Rudd MP Prime Minister Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600